A GOVERNMENT watchdog has attacked the borough council for mismanaging an application to erect a phone mast last year.

Ignorance of the rules governing masts meant Woking Borough Council missed its chance to voice opposition to one being erected in Parley Drive.

It was constructed in November 2006 after phone operator T-Mobile faced no opposition from the council within the statutory 56-day period.

The Local Government Ombudsman has ordered the council to pay £250 to each of two householders who complained about the issue. The council has also been told to retrain staff because of its mistakes.

Tony Redmond, speaking on behalf of the ombudsman, said: “The council was at fault as it failed to serve notice of refusal of a prior approval application within the 56 days required by law.”

He explained that the council’s procedures for dealing with phone mast applications were “inadequate”.

Now a pressure group against the mast in Parley Drive is calling for those responsible for the blunder to lose their jobs.

Adrian Gray, from Goldsworth Residents Against the Masts, said: “We hope the new administration at the council will seize the opportunity that this ruling has

presented them with and prune out the dead wood which caused this regrettable situation.”

The blunder boils down to the colour of ink used in the original application for the 9.7-metre mast, which was submitted on May 10, 2006.

Bureaucrats at the borough council deemed the application invalid because there was no red box on the paperwork outlining the site.

T-Mobile disagreed but responded on May 22, when it supplied the paperwork the council said it needed for the application to proceed.

Rules dictate that if an applicant is not notified of refusal within 56 days after an application has been submitted, then approval is inferred.

The council missed the deadline because its officers incorrectly believed the application submission date was May 22, because the original May 10 application had contained no red box.

T-Mobile lawfully erected the mast, with no regard for the planning committee’s objection that the company had not demonstrated alternative sites could not be found.

The ombudsman stated that if the council had not made the mistake, there was nothing to say that the mast would not have been erected anyway.

But his call for the council to review its telecommunications procedures will do nothing to ease red faces within the planning department.

One of the residents who will receive compensation said: “This is the second time the council has failed to notify a mast operator within the prescribed time limits of refusal of planning permission for a mast near Harelands roundabout.

“The first time was in 2003 and the ombudsman found the council guilty of maladministration.

“The council acknowledged this, saying it had addressed the issue of what went wrong with a view to avoiding repetition.

“Now they have done it again, which just goes to show that they are pretty incompetent in these matters.”

Mr Gray said he was pleased the council had been found guilty of “maladministration” — claims his group made last November.

He added: “However, there are no winners here and the compensation is meagre rather than punitive.

“The mast has been operational for nearly a year and its microwave emissions will be contributing to the ill-health of residents for years to come.

“Its presence has become another blot on the landscape.”

Adrian Bishop, the borough council’s deputy planning officer, said: “In 2006, a T-Mobile phone mast that was erected by permitted development was incorrect.

“The council failed to notify the mobile phone operator of our decision not to allow planning permission for the mast within the designated 56 days, following receipt of the application.

“We consider that we were following recommended standards as to the need for precision in siting such development (contained in a government code of practice) and this caused a delay, but we accept that we were out of time when giving notice that prior approval was required.

“We have agreed to pay the two households who complained about the situation £250 in compensation, which the ombudsman considers to be a satisfactory outcome.”